The court affirmed that a plaint cannot be rejected for lack of cause of action or limitation if no time limit for performance is specified, allowing oral agreements for immovable property.

ORDER :

1. The petitioner is aggrieved by refusal of prayer to reject the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. The impugned order was passed on 27.8.2016 in Civil Suit No. 23/2014 brought by plaintiffs/respondent nos. 1 to 3 against the petitioner and proforma respondents. The challenge was/is on the ground that the plaintiffs have no real cause of action, rather illusionary cause of action is stated in the plaint and the plaint is hopelessly barred by limitation.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the plaintiffs/ respondents have brought the suit for specific performance of oral contract dated 30.4.1978 and the suit was filed on 2.11.2014. There is no acceptable explanation for such a delay. Moreover, it is frivolous to claim oral agreement to sale so old that many of the person present on the date of agreement already left the world.

3. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs/respondents contend that the parties were so closely related having strong faith on each other that the transaction took place on oral assurance that in future when it would be required, a sale deed would be executed.

4. The legal position is well settled, in the matter of consideration of prayer under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, by a catena of decision. The petitioner has relied on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dahiben Vs. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali (Gajra) (D) the LRs. & Ors.,(2020) 7 SCC 366. In para 12 of the judgment, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as follows:-

“The remedy under Order VII Rule 11 is an independent and special remedy, wherein the Court is empowered to summarily dismiss a suit at the threshold, without proceeding to record evidence, and conducting a trial, on the basis of the evidence adduced, if it is satisfied that the action should be terminated on any of the grounds contained in this provision.

The underlying object of Order VII Rule 11 (a)is that if in a suit, no cause of action is disclosed, or the suit is barred by limitation under Rule 11 (d), the Court would not permit the plaintiff to unnecessarily protract the proceedings in the suit. In such a case, it would be necessary to put an end to the sham litigation, so that further judicial time is not wasted.

In Azhar Hussain v. Rajiv Gandhi this Court held that the whole purpose of conferment of powers under this provision is to ensure that a litigation which is meaningless, and bound to prove abortive, should not be permitted to waste judicial time of the court, in the following words:

“12. …The whole purpose of conferment of such power is to ensure that a litigation which is meaningless, and bound to prove abortive should not be permitted to occupy the time of the Court, and exercise the mind of the respondent. The sword of Damocles need not be kept hanging over his head unnecessarily without point or purpose. Even if an ordinary civil litigation, the Court readily exercises the power to reject a plaint, if it does not disclose any cause of action.”

12.2 The power conferred on the court to terminate a civil action is, however, a drastic one, and the conditions enumerated in Order VII Rule 11 are required to be strictly adhered to.

12.3 Under Order VII Rule 11, a duty is cast on the Court to determine whether the plaint discloses a cause of action by scrutinizing the averments in the plaint, read in conjunction with the documents relied upon, or whether the suit is barred by any law.

12.4 Order VII Rule 14(1) provides for production of documents, on which the plaintiff places reliance in his suit, which reads as under :

“Order 7 Rule 14: Production of document on which plaintiff sues or relies.–

(1) Where a plaintiff sues upon a document or relies upon document in his possession or power in support of his claim, he shall enter such documents in a list, and shall produce it in Court when the plaint is presented by him and shall, at the same time deliver the document and a copy thereof, to be filed with the plaint.

(2) Where any such document is not in the possession or pow